RAGHBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: V. R. Krishna Iyer
E. S. Venkatramiah
Judgment Date: 1980-03-31
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ragbir Singh

Respondents

State of Haryana

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. N. Mulla
• T. L. Garg
• N. D. Garg

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ragbir Singh v. State of Haryana concerns the death of a theft suspect after severe flagellation during police custody. The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, allegedly subjected one of the suspects to brutal treatment while investigating a theft at a residence. The deceased succumbed to asphyxiation. A medical examination confirmed asphyxiation as the cause of death; the evidence included testimony from eye-witnesses about nocturnal detention and beating inside the police station. The trial court convicted the petitioner of murder under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment; the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. The petition argued that there was no reliable proof of murder; the defense asserted suicidal hanging or other causes, challenging the prosecution's theory of flagellation. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances and the incontrovertible facts before the lower courts and concluded there was no material error in the appreciation of evidence. It noted disturbing recurrences of police torture and warned of the perils to rights and public confidence in the rule of law. It emphasized the importance of ensuring police accountability and warned that police lock-ups are becoming dangerous institutions. The Court closed with a call for state action to prevent brutality. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and affirmed the murder conviction and life sentence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that there is no reliable proof of murder and that the prosecution’s version of flagellation leading to death is unproven or misrepresented. The defense argued that the death could be explained by suicide or alternative causes, and sought to discredit the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. The challenge was to the sufficiency and interpretation of eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the chain of custody and detention circumstances, urging that the lower courts erred in their appreciation of the record.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued that the medical findings of asphyxiation, the evidence of nocturnal detention, and eyewitness testimony establish a murder charge under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It contended that the trial court’s and the High Court’s conclusions were well supported by the circumstances and the evidence, and that the petition should be dismissed. The respondent defense emphasized law enforcement responsibility and the necessity of upholding the convictions against challenges to the evidentiary value.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

277 RAGHBIR SINGH _v._ S'I'ATE OF !JARYANA _March_ 31, 1980 [V. R, KRISHNA !YER AND E. S. VENKATARAM!AH, JJ.j _**Criminal trials-Death of a suspect**_ _**in**_ _**police**_ _**custody-Use**_ _**of third dtgree**_ _**methods**_ _**by**_ _**police**_ _**in**_ _**investigation-Disapproved.**_ **A** **B** **The** **pr06ecution** **aille.ged** **that** **the** **petitioner,** **an** **Assistant** **Sub-Inspccor** **of** **Police,** **subjected** **one** **of** **the** **suspects** **in** **a** **theft** **case** **to** **severe** **flagellation** **which** A resulted in the death of the suspect. Medical examination of the deceased re- **C** vealed that death was due to asphyxiation. On a study of the circumstances and the incontrovertible facts _of_ ftasella· **tion** **and** **asphyxiation** **within** **police premises** **and** **the** **testimony** **of eye** **witnesses,** the trial court found the petitiorn:r guilty of the offence with which he waa **charged** **and** **sentenced** **him** **to** **imprisonment** **for** **life.** **His** **explanation** **that** **death** **was·** **due** **to** **suicidal** **hanging** **was** **rejected** **by** **the** **trial** **court** **as** **well** **as** by the High Court. **D** **Dismissing** **the** **petition,** **HELD** **:** **There** **was** **no** **error** **either** **in** **the** **appreciatio:nl** **of** **evidence** **or** **th•** **concJusion** **reached** **by** **the** **courts** **below.** **[278 D]** **[It** **is** **disturbing** _**to**_ **find** **diabolical** **recurrence** **of police** **tortures** **resulting** **in** **a** **terrible** **scare** **in** **the** **minds** **of** **common** **citizens** **that** **their** **lives** **and** **liberty** **E** **are** **under** **a** **new** **peril** **when** **the** **guardians** **of** **the** **law** **gore** **human** **rights** **to** **d'eath.** **Police** **lock-ups** **are** **becoming** **more** **and** **more** **awesome** **cells.** **This** **development** **is** **disastrous** **to** **the** **human** **rights** **awareness** **and** **the** **humanist** comtitutional order.] [278 El CruM!NAL APPELLATE JURJSD!Cl!ON : Special Leave Petition (Cr!.) No. 679/1980. **F** From the Judgment and Order dated 6-12-1979 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr!. A. No. 880/78. _A._ _N._ _Mui/a,_ _T._ _L._ _Garg_ and _N._ _D._ _Garg_ for the Petitioner. The Order of the Court was delivered by KRI•HNA IYER, J., The criminal scenario with a tragic'crescendo which has been unfurled in this Special Leave Petition starts with'a bunch of 'suspects' being brought up to the police postjwhich was'in charge of the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Insp~ctor. A; case of theft in some officer's house had been reported to the police the previous night and so as part of the investigation the suspects were picked'up and suffered as part of the processlof 'investigation' severe flagellation. Chhabila, one of those so tortured, succumbed to his injuries. This **G** **H** 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. •• - triggered off investigation into the murderous conduct of the investi ### • j #### c gator, the petitioner, and another. Medical examination revealed the cruel cause of death as asphyxiation. One of the injuries which, according to the doctor, made the deceased unconscious was torture on both the soles of the foot of the victim. A trial for murder fol· lowed, a conviction under s. 302 was entered and eventually the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment so far as the petitioner was concerned. ' A false explanation of suicidal hanging was set up by the police: officer-accused but this was rejected and eventually on a study of the circumstances· and the incontrovertible facts of flagellation and asphyxiation within ·police premises and the testimony of eyewitnesses about nocturnal detention;within)he police station and beating up of the victim, the courts below concurrently found the guilt of the petitioner proved beyond reasonable doubt. Strenuous submissions have been made to us by Shri Mulla to discredit the prosecution version of murder but we are not in the least convinced that there is any error in the appreciation or the conclusion. ##### ·o We are deeply disturbed by the diabolical recurrence of police torture resulting in a terrible scarce in the minds of common citizens that their lives and liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights to death. The vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic, torturesome poignancy when violent vioE lation is perpetrated by the police arm of the State whose function is to protect the citizen and not to commit gr.uesome offences against them as has happened in this case. Police lock-up if reports in newspapers have a streak of credence, are becoming more and more awesome cells. This development is disastrous to our human rights awareness and humanist constitutional order. F ; The State; at the highest administrative and political levels, we --'-' hope, will organise special strategies to prevent and punish brutality by police methodology. Otherwise, the credibility of the rule of law in our Republic vis-a-vis the people of the country will deteriorate. We conclude with the disconcerting note sounded by Abraham Lincoln: "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true 11 that you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." A # ' RAGHDIR SINGH _v._ HARYANA _(Krishna Iyer,_ _I)_ 2 7 9 These observations have become necessary to impress upon;the State police echelon.s the urgency of stamping out the:vice;or 'third degree' from the investigative armoury of the police. P. B. R • _Petition dismissed._ ## •